A randomised controlled trial of a nurse facilitator to promote communication for family members of critically ill patients.

PURPOSE: Suboptimal communication with clinicians, fragmented care and failure to align with patients' preferences are determinants of post intensive care unit (ICU) burden in family members. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a nurse facilitator on family psychological burden. METHODS: We carried out a randomised controlled trial in five ICUs in France comparing standard communication by ICU clinicians to additional communication and support by nurse facilitators. We included patients > 18 years, with expected ICU length of stay > 2 days, chronic life-limiting illness, and their family members. Facilitators were trained to help families to secure care in line with patient's goals, beginning in ICU and continuing for 3 months. Assessments were made at baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months post-randomisation. Primary outcome was the evolution of family symptoms of depression over 6 months using a linear mixed effects model on the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Secondary outcomes included HADS-Anxiety, Impact of Event Scale-6, goal-concordant care and experience of serious illness (QUAL-E). RESULTS: 385 patients and family members were enrolled. Follow-up at 1-, 3- and 6-month was completed by 284 (74%), 264 (68.6%) and 260 (67.5%) family members respectively. The intervention was associated with significantly more formal meetings between the ICU team and the family (1 [1-3] vs 2 [1-4]; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in evolution of symptoms of depression over 6 months (p = 0.91), nor in symptoms of depression at 6 months [0.53 95% CI (- 0.48; 1.55)]. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study does not support the use of facilitators for family members of ICU patients.

Intervention to Promote Communication About Goals of Care for Hospitalized Patients With Serious Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Discussions about goals of care are important for high-quality palliative care yet are often lacking for hospitalized older patients with serious illness. Objective: To evaluate a communication-priming intervention to promote goals-of-care discussions between clinicians and hospitalized older patients with serious illness. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, randomized clinical trial of a clinician-facing communication-priming intervention vs usual care was conducted at 3 US hospitals within 1 health care system, including a university, county, and community hospital. Eligible hospitalized patients were aged 55 years or older with any of the chronic illnesses used by the Dartmouth Atlas project to study end-of-life care or were aged 80 years or older. Patients with documented goals-of-care discussions or a palliative care consultation between hospital admission and eligibility screening were excluded. Randomization occurred between April 2020 and March 2021 and was stratified by study site and history of dementia. Intervention: Physicians and advance practice clinicians who were treating the patients randomized to the intervention received a 1-page, patient-specific intervention (Jumpstart Guide) to prompt and guide goals-of-care discussions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with electronic health record-documented goals-of-care discussions within 30 days. There was also an evaluation of whether the effect of the intervention varied by age, sex, history of dementia, minoritized race or ethnicity, or study site. Results: Of 3918 patients screened, 2512 were enrolled (mean age, 71.7 [SD, 10.8] years and 42% were women) and randomized (1255 to the intervention group and 1257 to the usual care group). The patients were American Indian or Alaska Native (1.8%), Asian (12%), Black (13%), Hispanic (6%), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.5%), non-Hispanic (93%), and White (70%). The proportion of patients with electronic health record-documented goals-of-care discussions within 30 days was 34.5% (433 of 1255 patients) in the intervention group vs 30.4% (382 of 1257 patients) in the usual care group (hospital- and dementia-adjusted difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 0.4% to 7.8%]). The analyses of the treatment effect modifiers suggested that the intervention had a larger effect size among patients with minoritized race or ethnicity. Among 803 patients with minoritized race or ethnicity, the hospital- and dementia-adjusted proportion with goals-of-care discussions was 10.2% (95% CI, 4.0% to 16.5%) higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group. Among 1641 non-Hispanic White patients, the adjusted proportion with goals-of-care discussions was 1.6% (95% CI, -3.0% to 6.2%) higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group. There was no evidence of differential treatment effects of the intervention on the primary outcome by age, sex, history of dementia, or study site. Conclusions and Relevance: Among hospitalized older adults with serious illness, a pragmatic clinician-facing communication-priming intervention significantly improved documentation of goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record, with a greater effect size in racially or ethnically minoritized patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04281784.

The association between arterial compliance, as assessed by PTC1 and PTC2 from radial artery waveforms, and age, sex, and race/ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: There is limited literature on differences in arterial compliance, as assessed from arterial pressure waveforms, with age, sex, and race/ethnicity. PTC1 and PTC2 are indices of arterial compliance, which are derived from a Windkessel model of the waveform, relatively easy to obtain, and associated with cardiovascular disease. METHOD: PTC1 and PTC2 were computed from radial artery waveforms from participants of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis at baseline and again 10 years later. We evaluated the association of PTC1, PTC2, and 10-year change in PTC1 and PTC2 with age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 6245 participants in 2000-2002 (mean ±â€ŠSD of age was 62 ±â€Š10 years; 52% female; 38% White, 12% Chinese, 27% Black, and 23% Hispanic/Latino), means ±â€ŠSDs for PTC1 and PTC2 were 394 ±â€Š334 and 94 ±â€Š46 ms. After adjustment for cardiovascular disease risk factors, mean PTC2 was 1.1 ms (95% confidence interval: 1.0, 1.2) lower (arterial stiffness was greater) per year older age, was 22 ms (19, 24) lower for females, and varied by race/ethnicity ( P  < 0.001; e.g., 5 ms lower for Blacks compared with Whites), although the differences were smaller at older ages ( P  < 0.001 for age-sex, P  < 0.001 for age-race/ethnicity interactions). Among 3701 participants with repeat measurements in 2010-2012, arteries had stiffened (mean ±â€ŠSD 10-year decrease in PTC2: 13 ±â€Š46 ms) consistent with cross-sectional age-trend and tended to stiffen less for females and Blacks consistent with cross-sectional age-interactions. CONCLUSION: Differences in arterial compliance by age, sex, and race/ethnicity lend support to identify and act on societal factors that may drive health disparities.

Identification of Palliative Care Needs and Mental Health Outcomes Among Family Members of Patients With Severe Acute Brain Injury.

Importance: Family members of patients with severe acute brain injury (SABI) are at risk for poor psychological outcomes. Objective: To explore the utility of the early use of a palliative care needs checklist in identifying care needs of patients with SABI and family members who are at risk of poor psychological outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included patients with SABI in an intensive care unit (ICU) for 2 days or more and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 12 or lower and their family members. This single-center study was conducted at an academic hospital in Seattle, Washington, from January 2018 to June 2021. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to July 2022. Exposure: At enrollment, a 4-item palliative care needs checklist was completed separately by clinicians and family members. Main Outcomes and Measures: A single family member for each enrolled patient completed questionnaires assessing symptoms of depression and anxiety, perception of goal-concordant care, and satisfaction in the ICU. Six months later, family members assessed their psychological symptoms, decisional regret, patient functional outcome, and patient quality of life (QOL). Results: A total of 209 patient-family member pairs (family member mean [SD] age, 51 [16] years; 133 women [64%]; 18 Asian [9%], 21 Black [10%], 20 [10%] Hispanic, and 153 White [73%] participants) were included. Patients had experienced stroke (126 [60%]), traumatic brain injury (62 [30%]), and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (21 [10%]). At least 1 need was identified for 185 patients or their families (88%) by family members and 110 (53%) by clinicians (κ = -0.007; 52% agreement). Symptoms of at least moderate anxiety or depression were present in 50% of family members at enrollment (87 with anxiety and 94 with depression) and 20% at follow-up (33 with anxiety and 29 with depression). After adjustment for patient age, diagnosis, and disease severity and family race and ethnicity, clinician identification of any need was associated with greater goal discordance (203 participants; relative risk = 1.7 [95% CI, 1.2 to 2.5]) and family decisional regret (144 participants; difference in means, 17 [95% CI, 5 to 29] points). Family member identification of any need was associated with greater symptoms of depression at follow-up (150 participants; difference in means of Patient Health Questionnaire-2, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.2 to 1.3] points) and worse perceived patient QOL (78 participants; difference in means, -17.1 [95% CI, -33.6 to -0.5] points). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective cohort study of patients with SABI and their families, palliative care needs were common, although agreement on needs was poor between clinicians and family members. A palliative care needs checklist completed by clinicians and family members may improve communication and promote timely, targeted management of needs.

Predictors of Documented Goals-of-Care Discussion for Hospitalized Patients With Chronic Illness.

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care discussions are important for patient-centered care among hospitalized patients with serious illness. However, there are little data on the occurrence, predictors, and timing of these discussions. OBJECTIVES: To examine the occurrence, predictors, and timing of electronic health record (EHR)-documented goals-of-care discussions for hospitalized patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used natural language processing (NLP) to examine EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions for adults with chronic life-limiting illness or age ≥80 hospitalized 2015-2019. The primary outcome was NLP-identified documentation of a goals-of-care discussion during the index hospitalization. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations with baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 16,262 consecutive, eligible patients without missing data, 5,918 (36.4%) had a documented goals-of-care discussion during hospitalization; approximately 57% of these discussions occurred within 24 hours of admission. In multivariable analysis, documented goals-of-care discussions were more common for women (OR=1.26, 95%CI 1.18-1.36), older patients (OR=1.04 per year, 95%CI 1.03-1.04), and patients with more comorbidities (OR=1.11 per Deyo-Charlson point, 95%CI 1.10-1.13), cancer (OR=1.88, 95%CI 1.72-2.06), dementia (OR=2.60, 95%CI 2.29-2.94), higher acute illness severity (OR=1.12 per National Early Warning Score point, 95%CI 1.11-1.14), or prior advance care planning documents (OR=1.18, 95%CI 1.08-1.30). Documentation of these discussions was less common for racially or ethnically minoritized patients (OR=0.823, 95%CI 0.75-0.90). CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized patients with serious illness, documented goals-of-care discussions identified by NLP were more common among patients with older age and increased burden of acute or chronic illness, and less common among racially or ethnically minoritized patients. This suggests important disparities in goals-of-care discussions.

Inter-arm systolic blood pressure difference: non-persistence and association with incident cardiovascular disease in the Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.

We investigated inter-arm systolic blood pressure (sIAD) difference, reproducibility, and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD). We hypothesized that higher sIAD values have low prevalence and nonpersistence over years, but that CVD risk is higher starting from the time of first high absolute sIAD. In Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis participants (n = 6725, 53% female, 45-84 years old), Doppler systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements were made in both arms (10-minute interval) thrice over 9.5 years. Proportional hazards for CVD (coronary heart disease, heart failure, stroke, peripheral arterial disease (PAD)) over 16.4 years were tested according to time-varying absolute inter-arm difference with covariates: (1) age, gender, race, and clinic; (2) model 1 plus height, heart rate, BP, antihypertensives, BMI, smoking status, lipids, lipid lowering medication, and diabetes. High sIAD was not persistent across exams. Maximum absolute sIAD ≥ 15 mmHg was found at least once in 815 persons. Maximum absolute sIAD had a graded relationship with incident stroke or PAD: 6.2% events; model 2 hazard ratio per 10 mmHg 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.56) and this risk was approximately doubled for maximum absolute sIAD ≥ 15 mmHg vs 0-4 mmHg. Total CVD risk (18.4% events) was increased only for maximum absolute sIAD ≥25 mmHg. Associations with incident CVD did not differ for higher SBP in left vs right arm. A higher maximum absolute sIAD at any exam was associated with greater risk for stroke and PAD especially for values ≥ 15 mmHg, and ≥25 mmHg for other CVD. Measuring SBP between arms may help identify individuals at risk for CVD.

Improving communication about goals of care for hospitalized patients with serious illness: Study protocol for two complementary randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Although goals-of-care discussions are important for high-quality palliative care, this communication is often lacking for hospitalized older patients with serious illness. Electronic health records (EHR) provide an opportunity to identify patients who might benefit from these discussions and promote their occurrence, yet prior interventions using the EHR for this purpose are limited. We designed two complementary yet independent randomized trials to examine effectiveness of a communication-priming intervention (Jumpstart) for hospitalized older adults with serious illness. METHODS: We report the protocol for these 2 randomized trials. Trial 1 has two arms, usual care and a clinician-facing Jumpstart, and is a pragmatic trial assessing outcomes with the EHR only (n = 2000). Trial 2 has three arms: usual care, clinician-facing Jumpstart, and clinician- and patient-facing (bi-directional) Jumpstart (n = 600). We hypothesize the clinician-facing Jumpstart will improve outcomes over usual care and the bi-directional Jumpstart will improve outcomes over the clinician-facing Jumpstart and usual care. We use a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design to examine implementation barriers and facilitators. OUTCOMES: For both trials, the primary outcome is EHR documentation of a goals-of-care discussion within 30 days of randomization; additional outcomes include intensity of end-of-life care. Trial 2 also examines patient- or family-reported outcomes assessed by surveys targeting 3-5 days and 4-8 weeks after randomization including quality of goals-of-care communication, receipt of goal-concordant care, and psychological symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This novel study incorporates two complementary randomized trials and a hybrid effectiveness-implementation approach to improve the quality and value of care for hospitalized older adults with serious illness. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: STUDY00007031-A and STUDY00007031-B.

Seriously Ill Patients' Prioritized Goals and Their Clinicians' Perceptions of Those Goals.

CONTEXT: Seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goals are understood by their clinicians are likely better positioned to receive goal-concordant care. OBJECTIVES: To examine the proportion of seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goal is accurately perceived by their clinician and identify factors associated with accurate perception. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness and their clinicians. Approximately two weeks after a clinic visit, patients reported their current prioritized healthcare goal- extending life over relief of pain and discomfort, or relief of pain and discomfort over extending life - and clinicians reported their perception of their patients' current prioritized healthcare goal; matching these items defined accurate perception. RESULTS: Of 252 patients with a prioritized healthcare goal, 60% had their goal accurately perceived by their clinician, 27% were cared for by clinicians who perceived prioritization of the alternative goal, and 13% had their clinician answer unsure. Patients who were older (OR 1.03 per year; 95%CI 1.01, 1.05), had stable goals (OR 2.52; 95%CI 1.26, 5.05), and had a recent goals-of-care discussion (OR 1.78, 95%CI 1.00, 3.16) were more likely to have their goals accurately perceived. CONCLUSION: A majority of seriously ill outpatients are cared for by clinicians who accurately perceive their patients' prioritized healthcare goals. However, a substantial portion are not and may be at higher risk for goal-discordant care. Interventions that facilitate goals-of-care discussions may help align care with goals, as recent discussions were associated with accurate perceptions of patients' prioritized goals.

Efficacy of a Communication-Priming Intervention on Documented Goals-of-Care Discussions in Hospitalized Patients With Serious Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High-quality goals-of-care communication is critical to delivering goal-concordant, patient-centered care to hospitalized patients with chronic life-limiting illness. However, implementation and documentation of goals-of-care discussions remain important shortcomings in many health systems. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a patient-facing and clinician-facing communication-priming intervention to promote goals-of-care communication for patients hospitalized with serious illness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from November 6, 2018, to February 18, 2020. The setting was 2 hospitals in an academic health care system in Seattle, Washington. Participants included hospitalized adults with chronic life-limiting illness, aged 65 years or older and with markers of frailty, or aged 80 years or older. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to August 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to usual care with baseline questionnaires (control) vs the Jumpstart communication-priming intervention. Patients or surrogates in the intervention group and their clinicians received patient-specific Jumpstart Guides populated with data from questionnaires and the electronic health records (EHRs) that were designed to prompt and guide a goals-of-care discussion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was EHR documentation of a goals-of-care discussion between randomization and hospital discharge. Additional outcomes included patient-reported or surrogate-reported goals-of-care discussions, patient-reported or surrogate-reported quality of communication, and intervention feasibility and acceptability. Results: Of 428 eligible patients, this study enrolled 150 patients (35% enrollment rate; mean [SD] age, 59.2 [13.6] years; 66 women [44%]; 132 [88%] by patient consent and 18 [12%] by surrogate consent). Seventy-five patients each were randomized to the intervention and control groups. Compared with the control group, the cumulative incidence of EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions between randomization and hospital discharge was higher in the intervention group (16 of 75 patients [21%] vs 6 of 75 patients [8%]; risk difference, 13% [95% CI, 2%-24%]; risk ratio, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.10-6.44]; P = .04). Patient-reported or surrogate-reported goals-of-care discussions did not differ significantly between groups (30 of 66 patients [45%] vs 36 of 66 patients [55%]), although the intrarater consistency of patient and surrogate reports was poor. Patient-rated or surrogate-rated quality of communication did not differ significantly between groups. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to patients, surrogates, and clinicians. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a patient-facing and clinician-facing communication priming intervention for seriously ill, hospitalized patients promoted EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions before discharge with good feasibility and acceptability. Communication-priming interventions should be reexamined in a larger randomized clinical trial to better understand their effectiveness in the inpatient setting. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03746392.

Mixed-methods evaluation of three natural language processing modeling approaches for measuring documented goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record.

CONTEXT: Documented goals-of-care discussions are an important quality metric for patients with serious illness. Natural language processing (NLP) is a promising approach for identifying goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record (EHR). OBJECTIVES: To compare three NLP modeling approaches for identifying EHR documentation of goals-of-care discussions and generate hypotheses about differences in performance. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study to evaluate performance and misclassification for three NLP featurization approaches modeled with regularized logistic regression: bag-of-words (BOW), rule-based, and a hybrid approach. From a prospective cohort of 150 patients hospitalized with serious illness over 2018 to 2020, we collected 4391 inpatient EHR notes; 99 (2.3%) contained documented goals-of-care discussions. We used leave-one-out cross-validation to estimate performance by comparing pooled NLP predictions to human abstractors with receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) and precision-recall (PR) analyses. We qualitatively examined a purposive sample of 70 NLP-misclassified notes using content analysis to identify linguistic features that allowed us to generate hypotheses underpinning misclassification. RESULTS: All three modeling approaches discriminated between notes with and without goals-of-care discussions (AUCROC: BOW, 0.907; rule-based, 0.948; hybrid, 0.965). Precision and recall were only moderate (precision at 70% recall: BOW, 16.2%; rule-based, 50.4%; hybrid, 49.3%; AUCPR: BOW, 0.505; rule-based, 0.579; hybrid, 0.599). Qualitative analysis revealed patterns underlying performance differences between BOW and rule-based approaches. CONCLUSION: NLP holds promise for identifying EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions. However, the rarity of goals-of-care content in EHR data limits performance. Our findings highlight opportunities to optimize NLP modeling approaches, and support further exploration of different NLP approaches to identify goals-of-care discussions.

Atherothrombotic factors and atherosclerotic cardiovascular events: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis.

AIMS: Traditional atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors fail to address the full spectrum of the complex interplay of atherosclerotic and atherothrombotic factors integral to ASCVD events. This study sought to examine the association between atherothrombotic biomarkers and ASCVD events. METHODS AND RESULTS: The association between atherothrombotic biomarkers and 877 ASCVD events with and without adjustment for traditional risk factors was evaluated via Cox proportional hazards models and factor analysis in 5789 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis participants over a median follow-up of 14.7 years. Factor analysis accounted for multidimensional relationship and shared variance among study biomarkers, which identified two new variables: a thrombotic factor (Factor 1), principally defined by shared variance in fibrinogen, plasmin-antiplasmin complex, factor VIII, D-dimer, and lipoprotein(a), and a fibrinolytic factor (Factor 2), principally defined by shared variance of plasminogen and oxidized phospholipids on plasminogen. In a model including both factors, the thrombotic factor was associated with the higher risk of ASCVD events [hazard ratio (HR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45, 1.70], while the fibrinolytic factor was associated with the lower risk of ASCVD events (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70, 0.82), with estimated ASCVD free survival highest for low atherothrombotic Factor 1 and high atherothrombotic Factor 2. CONCLUSION: Two atherothrombotic factors, one representative of thrombotic propensity and the other representative of fibrinolytic propensity, were significantly and complementarily associated with incident ASCVD events, remained significantly associated with incident ASCVD after controlling for traditional risk factors, and have promise for identifying patients at high ASCVD event risk specifically due to their atherothrombotic profile.

Assessment of Discordance Between Physicians and Family Members Regarding Prognosis in Patients With Severe Acute Brain Injury.

Importance: Shared decision-making requires key stakeholders to align in perceptions of prognosis and likely treatment outcomes. Objective: For patients with severe acute brain injury, the objective of this study was to better understand prognosis discordance between physicians and families by determining prevalence and associated factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods cross-sectional study analyzed a cohort collected from January 4, 2018, to July 22, 2020. This study was conducted in the medical and cardiac intensive care units of a single neuroscience center. Participants included families, physicians, and nurses of patients admitted with severe acute brain injury. Exposures: Severe acute brain injury was defined as stroke, traumatic brain injury, or hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy with a Glasgow Coma Scale score less than or equal to 12 points after hospital day 2. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prognosis discordance was defined as a 20% or greater difference between family and physician prognosis predictions; misunderstanding was defined as a 20% or greater difference between physician prediction and the family's estimate of physician prediction; and optimistic belief difference was defined as any difference (>0%) between family prediction and their estimate of physician prediction. Logistic regression was used to identify associations with discordance. Optimistic belief differences were analyzed as a subgroup of prognosis discordance. Results: Among 222 enrolled patients, prognostic predictions were available for 193 patients (mean [SD] age, 57 [19] years; 106 men [55%]). Prognosis discordance occurred for 118 patients (61%) and was significantly more common among families who identified with minoritized racial groups compared with White families (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; CI, 1.40-7.07, P = .006); among siblings (OR, 4.93; 95% CI, 1.35-17.93, P = .02) and adult children (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.10-5.37; P = .03) compared with spouses; and when nurses perceived family understanding as poor compared with good (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 1.88-7.40; P < .001). Misunderstanding was present for 80 of 173 patients (46%) evaluated for this type of prognosis discordance, and optimistic belief difference was present for 94 of 173 patients (54%). In qualitative analysis, faith and uncertainty emerged as themes underlying belief differences. Nurse perception of poor family understanding was significantly associated with misunderstanding (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.07-3.94; P = .03), and physician perception with optimistic belief differences (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.10-4.88; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that for patients with severe acute brain injury, prognosis discordance between physicians and families was common. Efforts to improve communication and decision-making should aim to reduce this discordance and find ways to target both misunderstanding and optimistic belief differences.

Facilitating communication for critically ill patients and their family members: Study protocol for two randomized trials implemented in the U.S. and France.

BACKGROUND: Critically-ill patients and their families suffer a high burden of psychological symptoms due, in part, to many transitions among clinicians and settings during and after critical illness, resulting in fragmented care. Communication facilitators may help. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: We are conducting two cluster-randomized trials, one in the U.S. and one in France, with the goal of evaluating a nurse facilitator trained to support, model, and teach communication strategies enabling patients and families to secure care consistent with patients' goals, beginning in ICU and continuing for 3 months. PARTICIPANTS: We will randomize 376 critically-ill patients in the US and 400 in France to intervention or usual care. Eligible patients have a risk of hospital mortality of greater than15% or a chronic illness with a median survival of approximately 2 years or less. OUTCOMES: We assess effectiveness with patient- and family-centered outcomes, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress, as well as assessments of goal-concordant care, at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-randomization. The primary outcome is family symptoms of depression over 6 months. We also evaluate whether the intervention improves value by reducing utilization while improving outcomes. Finally, we use mixed methods to explore implementation factors associated with implementation outcomes (acceptability, fidelity, acceptability, penetration) to inform dissemination. Conducting the trial in U.S. and France will provide insights into differences and similarities between countries. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the design of two randomized trials of a communication facilitator for improving outcomes for critically ill patients and their families in two countries.

Identifying Goals of Care Conversations in the Electronic Health Record Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning.

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care discussions are an important quality metric in palliative care. However, goals-of-care discussions are often documented as free text in diverse locations. It is difficult to identify these discussions in the electronic health record (EHR) efficiently. OBJECTIVES: To develop, train, and test an automated approach to identifying goals-of-care discussions in the EHR, using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML). METHODS: From the electronic health records of an academic health system, we collected a purposive sample of 3183 EHR notes (1435 inpatient notes and 1748 outpatient notes) from 1426 patients with serious illness over 2008-2016, and manually reviewed each note for documentation of goals-of-care discussions. Separately, we developed a program to identify notes containing documentation of goals-of-care discussions using NLP and supervised ML. We estimated the performance characteristics of the NLP/ML program across 100 pairs of randomly partitioned training and test sets. We repeated these methods for inpatient-only and outpatient-only subsets. RESULTS: Of 3183 notes, 689 contained documentation of goals-of-care discussions. The mean sensitivity of the NLP/ML program was 82.3% (SD 3.2%), and the mean specificity was 97.4% (SD 0.7%). NLP/ML results had a median positive likelihood ratio of 32.2 (IQR 27.5-39.2) and a median negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (IQR 0.16-0.20). Performance was better in inpatient-only samples than outpatient-only samples. CONCLUSION: Using NLP and ML techniques, we developed a novel approach to identifying goals-of-care discussions in the EHR. NLP and ML represent a potential approach toward measuring goals-of-care discussions as a research outcome and quality metric.

The association between indices of blood pressure waveforms (PTC1 and PTC2) and incident heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: The radial artery pulse waveform is a continuous measure of pressure throughout the cardiac cycle, and thus can provide more information than just systolic and diastolic blood pressures. New indices based on a Windkessel model of the waveform, PTC1 and PTC2, are related to arterial compliance and add information for prediction of incident cardiovascular disease (coronary heart disease, stroke, myocardial infarction) but their association with heart failure is unknown. METHODS: Among 6229 adults (mean age 62 years) from four race/ethnic groups who were initially free of clinical cardiovascular disease and heart failure in 2000-2002, we evaluated the associations of baseline PTC1 and PTC2 with incident heart failure. RESULTS: Mean ±â€Šstandard deviation PTC1 and PTC2 were 394 ±â€Š334 and 94 ±â€Š46 ms, respectively. During a median of 15.7 years follow-up, there were 357 heart failure events (148 with reduced, 150 with preserved, and 59 with unknown ejection fraction). After adjustment for traditional risk factors, the hazard ratio for heart failure per 1 standard deviation higher PTC2 was 0.73 (95% confidence interval: 0.63--0.85). Higher PTC2 was also significantly associated with lower risk of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (hazard ratio = 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.56--0.80). There was no evidence of a significant association between PTC2 and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction or between PTC1 and heart failure. CONCLUSION: The PTC2 measure of the radial artery pulse waveform may represent a novel phenotype related to heart failure, especially heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Preferences of People Receiving Dialysis.

Importance: Whether the cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences of patients receiving dialysis align with their values and other aspects of end-of-life care is not known. Objective: To describe the CPR preferences of patients receiving dialysis and how these preferences are associated with their responses to questions about other aspects of end-of-life care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional survey study of a consecutive sample of patients receiving dialysis at 31 nonprofit dialysis facilities in 2 US metropolitan areas (Seattle, Washington, and Nashville, Tennessee) between April 22, 2015, and October 2, 2018. Analyses for this article were conducted between December 2018 and April 2020. Exposures: Participants were asked to respond to the question "If you had to decide right now, would you want CPR if your heart were to stop beating?" Those who indicated they would probably or definitely want CPR were categorized as preferring CPR. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study examined the association between preference for CPR and other treatment preferences, engagement in advance care planning, values, desired place of death, expectations about prognosis, symptoms, and palliative care needs. Results: Of the 1434 individuals invited to complete the survey, 1009 agreed to participate, and 876 were included in the analytic cohort (61.1%). The final cohort had a mean (SD) age of 62.6 (14.0) years; 492 (56.2%) were men, and 528 (60.3%) were White individuals. Among 738 of 876 participants (84.2%) who indicated that they would definitely or probably want CPR (CPR group), 555 (75.2%) wanted mechanical ventilation vs 13 of 138 (9.4%) of those who did not want CPR (do not resuscitate [DNR] group) (P < .001). A total of 249 of 738 participants (33.7%) in the CPR group vs 84 of 138 (60.9%) in the DNR group had documented treatment preferences (P < .001). In terms of values about future care, 171 participants (23.2%) in the CPR group vs 5 of 138 (3.6%) in the DNR group valued life prolongation (P < .001); 320 in the CPR group (43.4%) vs 109 of 138 in the DNR group (79.0%) valued comfort (P < .001); and 247 participants (33.5%) in the CPR group vs 24 of 138 (17.4%) in the DNR group were unsure about their wishes for future care (P < .001). In the CPR group, 207 (28.0%) had thought about stopping dialysis vs 62 of 138 (44.9%) in the DNR group (P < .001), and 181 (24.5%) vs 58 of 138 (42.0%) had discussed stopping dialysis (P = .001). No statistically significant associations were observed between CPR preference and documentation of a surrogate decision maker, thoughts or discussion of hospice, preferred place of death, expectations about prognosis, reported symptoms, or palliative care needs. Conclusions and Relevance: The CPR preferences of patients receiving dialysis were associated with some, but not all, other aspects of end-of-life care. How participants responded to questions about these other aspects of end-of-life care were not always aligned with their CPR preference. More work is needed to integrate discussions about code status with bigger picture conversations about patients' values, goals, and preferences for end-of-life care.

Association of Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment With ICU Admission Among Patients Hospitalized Near the End of Life.

Importance: Patients with chronic illness frequently use Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) to document treatment limitations. Objectives: To evaluate the association between POLST order for medical interventions and intensive care unit (ICU) admission for patients hospitalized near the end of life. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of patients with POLSTs and with chronic illness who died between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, and were hospitalized 6 months or less before death in a 2-hospital academic health care system. Exposures: POLST order for medical interventions ("comfort measures only" vs "limited additional interventions" vs "full treatment"), age, race/ethnicity, education, days from POLST completion to admission, histories of cancer or dementia, and admission for traumatic injury. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the association between POLST order and ICU admission during the last hospitalization of life; the secondary outcome was receipt of a composite of 4 life-sustaining treatments: mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, dialysis, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. For evaluating factors associated with POLST-discordant care, the outcome was ICU admission contrary to POLST order for medical interventions during the last hospitalization of life. Results: Among 1818 decedents (mean age, 70.8 [SD, 14.7] years; 41% women), 401 (22%) had POLST orders for comfort measures only, 761 (42%) had orders for limited additional interventions, and 656 (36%) had orders for full treatment. ICU admissions occurred in 31% (95% CI, 26%-35%) of patients with comfort-only orders, 46% (95% CI, 42%-49%) with limited-interventions orders, and 62% (95% CI, 58%-66%) with full-treatment orders. One or more life-sustaining treatments were delivered to 14% (95% CI, 11%-17%) of patients with comfort-only orders and to 20% (95% CI, 17%-23%) of patients with limited-interventions orders. Compared with patients with full-treatment POLSTs, those with comfort-only and limited-interventions orders were significantly less likely to receive ICU admission (comfort only: 123/401 [31%] vs 406/656 [62%], aRR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.45-0.62]; limited interventions: 349/761 [46%] vs 406/656 [62%], aRR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71-0.87]). Across patients with comfort-only and limited-interventions POLSTs, 38% (95% CI, 35%-40%) received POLST-discordant care. Patients with cancer were significantly less likely to receive POLST-discordant care than those without cancer (comfort only: 41/181 [23%] vs 80/220 [36%], aRR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43-0.85]; limited interventions: 100/321 [31%] vs 215/440 [49%], aRR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.51-0.78]). Patients with dementia and comfort-only orders were significantly less likely to receive POLST-discordant care than those without dementia (23/111 [21%] vs 98/290 [34%], aRR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.29-0.67]). Patients admitted for traumatic injury were significantly more likely to receive POLST-discordant care (comfort only: 29/64 [45%] vs 92/337 [27%], aRR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.08-2.14]; limited interventions: 51/91 [56%] vs 264/670 [39%], aRR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.09-1.68]). In patients with limited-interventions orders, older age was significantly associated with less POLST-discordant care (aRR, 0.93 per 10 years [95% CI, 0.88-1.00]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with POLSTs and with chronic life-limiting illness who were hospitalized within 6 months of death, treatment-limiting POLSTs were significantly associated with lower rates of ICU admission compared with full-treatment POLSTs. However, 38% of patients with treatment-limiting POLSTs received intensive care that was potentially discordant with their POLST.

PTC1 and PTC2: New Indices of Blood Pressure Waveforms and Cardiovascular Disease.

Systolic and diastolic blood pressures provide information about cardiovascular disease (CVD) but are only extremes of the pressure waveform during the cardiac cycle. We developed summaries of the pressure decay, called PTC1 and PTC2, that are related to arterial compliance and to an existing proprietary summary that has been shown to predict CVD. We derived the summaries from a Windkessel model (consisting of a decaying exponential plus a dampened cosine, with an intercept so they are independent of calibration with blood pressure, unlike the proprietary measures), and we estimated them using nonlinear least squares with standard, free software. Among 6,228 adults from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, initially free of CVD in 2000-2002, mean PTC2 was 94 (standard deviation, 46) milliseconds. During median 15-year follow-up, there were 911 CVD events (including 609 incidents of coronary heart disease and 270 strokes). One-standard-deviation higher PTC2 was associated with 17% (95% confidence interval: 10, 24) lower CVD risk, after adjustment for traditional risk factors. Results were similar for PTC1. PTC1 and PTC2 are relatively straightforward to compute and add information beyond traditional risk factors for prediction of CVD. Our work enables others to replicate and extend our results with waveforms from any suitable device.

Agreement With Consensus Statements on End-of-Life Care: A Description of Variability at the Level of the Provider, Hospital, and Country.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an enhanced understanding of factors that influence providers' views about end-of-life care, we examined the contributions of provider, hospital, and country to variability in agreement with consensus statements about end-of-life care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Data were drawn from a survey of providers' views on principles of end-of-life care obtained during the consensus process for the Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in ICUs study. SUBJECTS: Participants in Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in ICUs included physicians, nurses, and other providers. Our sample included 1,068 providers from 178 hospitals and 31 countries. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We examined views on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, using a three-level linear mixed model of responses from providers within hospitals within countries. Of 1,068 providers from 178 hospitals and 31 countries, 1% strongly disagreed, 7% disagreed, 11% were neutral, 44% agreed, and 36% strongly agreed with declining to offer cardiopulmonary resuscitation when not indicated. Of the total variability in those responses, 98%, 0%, and 2% were explained by differences among providers, hospitals, and countries, respectively. After accounting for provider characteristics and hospital size, the variance partition was similar. Results were similar for withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in agreement with consensus statements about end-of-life care is related primarily to differences among providers. Acknowledging the primary source of variability may facilitate efforts to achieve consensus and improve decision-making for critically ill patients and their family members at the end of life.